hearsay
... more controversial. The provisions of the Evidence Act have in particular turned the conduct of criminal trials upside down. Even what would traditionally be regarded as a straight-forward case, such as an indecent assault matter, has become a minefield of potential legal problems. The General Rule: Section 59 Evidence Act The general hearsay rule is expressed in a somewhat cumbersome manner in s. 59 of the Evidence Act in this way: "Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that the person intended to assert by the representation". This does not appear to be significantly different from the common law understanding of the general rule, that a statement of a person made to a witness is admissible for the purpose of proving that the words were said, but not in order to prove that the statement was true: Subramaniam [1956] 1 WLR 965. Clearly under the Evidence Act, and arguably at common law, a statement is not hearsay if the maker of the statement does not intend to assert the truth of the statement: Walton (1989) 166 CLR 283, (1989) 63 ALJR 226, Pollitt (1992) 62 A Crim R 190, 'Implied Hearsay', (1993) 67 ALJ 657. The difference is illustrated by a witness saying "Smith told me that he spoke to his father on the telephone", which...